Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Could you elaborate on what advice letters are? Who do they go to? What constitutes advice?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, you have the advice letters in front of you, so you can see that they are an overview of the process itself: when it was launched, how many people applied and what the diversity stats and backgrounds were in terms of ethnocultural diversity and linguistic diversity. We then provide an annex to the minister that explains how many qualified candidates there were and a snapshot of each candidate. It is a summary of the interview itself, a summary of the reference checks, and sometimes—not in this case—for senior leadership positions, we will do a psychometric assessment, which would provide information from a psychologist regarding the person's aptitude and abilities to serve in the role.

You can see that it is very sensitive information that we hold, and sometimes the candidates themselves don't even have this information about themselves that we hold. You can see why we feel very strongly that it's very important that we do everything humanly possible to protect that.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

In your selection, were you able to meet the diversity standards?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, that is a good question. The government's goal is to try to increase diversity across ethnocultural equity-seeking groups. I would say that, over the course of the government's tenure, they have done quite a good job in increasing diversity. We are at about gender parity in terms of positions across the Governor in Council community. We are at about 17% visible minorities, 6% persons with disabilities and 8% indigenous Canadians, so it's quite good in terms of representation across the GIC community.

In this particular case, the legislation specifically requires that the board be representative of men and women. It absolutely would have been a goal of the selection committee at the time to make sure that they had men and women represented, as well as a cross-section from individuals across the country, which is also a requirement under the SDTC foundation legislation.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

At your last appearance, you stated that there were no faults in the Verschuren appointment process and that the process was followed closely. You've also previously stated that it's not uncommon for there to be conflicts with appointees and that, in such cases, you refer them to the Ethics Commissioner's office.

In the case of Ms. Verschuren, this was done. Is that right? Is it the appointee's responsibility—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Yip, I'm going to cut you off there. I know that was a very short question, but you are over your time. We'll come back to you.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes. I'll give you and Mr. Boulerice a few extra seconds, given the interpretation delay.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's talk about the board members. Ms. Verschuren resigned on December 1, 2023. Jill Earthy resigned in January 2024. Erin Mahoney resigned in May 2024. Guy Ouimet resigned on June 3, 2024, almost a year after the release of the first version of the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton report.

You said that you advised people at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to be cautious in conversations. Could you elaborate? They all resigned, so we know that sensitive issues must have been discussed. Did you receive any further information on this? Were you kept in the loop?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I would just reiterate that “good behaviour” appointees are afforded a certain degree of independence from government. As I said, they can only be removed for cause. You see those often in organizations like the Immigration and Refugee Board, for example. Those members have to be protected, because they're making tough decisions and they need to know that they can make those decisions without any fear of reprisal or removal for making those decisions.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Are you saying that there was no reason to remove these board members?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, the point I'm trying to make is to draw a parallel. They had the same stature as somebody in a tribunal. They were “good behaviour” appointees to be fully independent from government. That was the decision that was made at the time the legislation was passed by Parliament. It is a very unusual construct—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Okay. My time is limited.

You're telling me that perhaps you hadn't yet built up sufficient grounds to remove them. Instead, the board members resigned as a result of difficult conversations.

They all resigned. Certain conversations pushed them towards the exit door.

What can you tell us about these conversations?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I would reiterate that when I am talking to any of my colleagues who are dealing with “good behaviour” appointees, I always caution them to be very careful. The bar to remove someone for cause is very high.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Okay. However, we aren't talking about removals. We're talking about resignations. They all resigned. They all resigned for certain reasons. Conversations took place to get them to resign.

What do you know about these conversations?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I would reiterate that I am not privy to any kind of conversations that would have happened with any of the members.

If I had been in any kind of discussions, like I said, as I would with any deputy or any colleague who's dealing with “good behaviour” appointees, I would have said that they have to proceed with prudence. If we wanted to remove these board members, we would have had to have a very solid case for cause. As I said, that bar is very high. It's usually a demonstration of things like fraud or mismanagement of funds. We would have had to have quite a detailed dossier to be able to do that.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Wait—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. McClymont, in response to my last question, you said something that caught my attention. I want to make sure that I understood it correctly.

You said that the board members had all the tools needed to do their job. However, they may have received poor legal advice.

What exactly did you have in mind?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I was referring back to the Ethics Commissioner's report. He did a postscript, where he said that it was an unfortunate set of circumstances where poor legal advice was provided. The issue turned on the fact that the legal advice for many of the board members was that they did not need to formally recuse themselves from decisions but to abstain, which meant that they did not remove themselves from the room.

The Conflict of Interest Act requires that individuals who are required to recuse must remove themselves from the room. It's not good enough to abstain. That was the poor legal advice that they received, which was the foundation of why he levelled his decisions against Ms. Verschuren.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Who gave them this legal advice? You said that the advice came from an external source. Whom did it come from?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

I'm not a super great expert in terms of the structure of SDTC.

Just going on the Ethics Commissioner's report, they had outside counsel that supported the board. It was that individual who provided the advice to the board members.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

What steps can be taken to ensure that this doesn't happen again?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

This is a fundamental question going forward. I have spoken to the Ethics Commissioner about this. I think it's going to be very important to ensure that individuals understand this—not just up front, but, as we talked about, in the appointment process, which is obviously our responsibility. The Ethics Commissioner is the guardian of the legislation. Making sure that people adhere to it over the life of their appointment will be something that we will continue to discuss in terms of trying to educate and inform Governor in Council appointees of their obligations.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 45 seconds left, Mr. Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Okay.

During a selection process leading to appointments of this nature, do you have ways to check the accuracy of the responses provided by individuals who state that they read and understood their obligations and that they had no conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest to report?

Do you take their word for it, or do you use methods to check the accuracy of their statements?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, as I've mentioned, our job is to make sure that people are made aware. It's ultimately the Ethics Commissioner's responsibility to administer and adjudicate the legislation.

I would reiterate the fact that, in the circumstances surrounding Ms. Verschuren's appointment, I do think that it was a best practice that she was referred to the commissioner's office. She spoke to the office and they had a detailed conversation. According to the Ethics Commissioner's report, they went through the kind of conversation the member is referring to, to make sure that they deconstructed her obligations under the legislation against her personal circumstances.

Absolutely, I think that is important, but it is really the remit of the Ethics Commissioner.